National Review carries today a fascinating interview of the authors of Washington’s God, a book that emphasizes our first president’s religiosity.
Personally, I’m skeptical of the new revisionist histories that tend to see our Founding Fathers as a bunch of Enlightenment-loving near-atheists. Some recent historians, when discussing Washington’s religiosity, tend to describe him as a “Deist.” The Novaks take on this claim with the following comment:
Washington’s names for God sometimes sounded deist, but the actions his prayers asked God to perform belong to the biblical God, not the god of the philosophers. Washington believed that God favored the cause of liberty, and should be beseeched to “interpose” his actions on behalf of the Americans- and he often called for public thanksgiving for the many ways in which Americans “experienced” God’s hand in events. He believed God could inspire thoughts and courage in human hearts, and give men fortitude to persevere in extreme difficulties. He held that praying for favors imposed duties on him who prayed.
Washington’s reflections on the workings of Providence were deep, and hardened by the crucible of experience. On these matters, he was a Christian, not a deist.
I’ll probably read Washington’s God, but I must say that Novak’s On Two Wings was extraordinarily difficult to read and clumsily written. I’m hoping for better, clearer and more concise writing in Novak’s new book.
And yet, he rarely attended Church and didn’t regularly read the Bible. Sounds pretty much like your typical secular Christian American today.
Who among us lives exactly as well as he ought to?
I believe Washington had a deep belief in God, and was Christian in his thought. He reflected much of the way people believed at that time.
I’m not read enough to have a firm opinion. But from what I’ve read it does seem open who is the revisionists. That is, to what degree do we project our religious values on these people. I’ve read claims for them being more religious than taken, but the things I’ve read often don’t seem very explicit. They are more caught up on a general vague rhetoric. And some of the major figures, such as Franklin, clearly had issues with Christianity.
“Near atheist” is kind of a leading term. Is deism ‘near to’ atheism? Perhaps from the perspective of a modern Evangelical, to say nothing of an 18th century frontier preacher. Jefferson was clearly a deist and disliked much of what passed for religion in his day, but was one of the most bright-eyed believers in a certain kind of providence that our country has ever seen. Like Washington, he also believed that God was on the side of freedom, even if it wasn’t for him the case that God was performing miracles on behalf of the colonies in the revolutionary war. I sometimes think that our measuring stick about what is and is not about to fall of the cliff into atheism (rejects the Universal Catholic Church, doesn’t read the Bible, thinks he is receiving revelations, doesn’t believe in miracles, etc.) is a bit arbitrary or at least unstated.
Secular commentators do indeed sometimes put the Founders into the categories of their time. To many of them the Founders appear as secular humanists in late 18th century clothing. The deism is interpreted as a way-station to atheism or agnositicism because we have no analogue to deism today. But we need to be careful not to fall into the opposite mistake (e.g. “they weren’t seculars–therefore they must have been the only other alternative: some kind of theologically conservative Christian”). This new book looks to be pretty competently done. But I worry that it was written just to grind contemporary cultural axes. The religion of the Founders, while in several cases clearly Christian, was in almost every case non-denominational Protestant. Mormonism, Adventism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to say nothing of the huge influx of Catholics, would have probably been disturbing developments for them. Their Christ was, to put it in terms that RH Niebuhr used, a Christ *of* culture rather than a Christ against culture or a Christ transforming culture. The best analogue to the religiosity of the more religious founders is probably mainline Protestantism rather than Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism or Mormonism. If Washington ran for president today I doubt the first thing people would think about him is “very religious”. That’s partially because he would have so many other great things one could say about him! But still, it kind of puts things in perspective.
“he rarely attended Church and didn’t regularly read the Bible. Sounds pretty much like your typical secular Christian American today.”
Or like the current president. But historians aren’t likely to question his religiosity.
Jeremiah J, as usual, an excellent comment. One small quibble: based on Washington’s many statements on the importance of religion, I would guess that people today would consider him very religious in the same sense they consider Bush “very religious.”
It’s an interesting issue Jeremiah. There’s definitely a range of beliefs. To a person who might believe in a God but feels he’s an abstract being, is skeptical of most narratives about him, and thinks he’s largely hands off, what are we left with? Take Einstein, he’s typically called a theist, yet his God is the Spinoza God which is roughly just the universe and its laws.
I guess the worry I have is when some assume all the founding fathers believe in God like us (thinking primarily of those who come from conservative Christianity, including ourselves).
I should add that I don’t think it necessarily a big issue. If God could use Cyrus to restore Israel, he certainly could use a bunch of unbelievers to produce an inspired Constitution. One doesn’t need to recognize one is being inspired to be inspired.
“One small quibble: based on Washington’s many statements on the importance of religion, I would guess that people today would consider him very religious in the same sense they consider Bush “very religious.””
Could be, indeed. I might have qualified what I’ve said above since I haven’t read as much of Washington as I have of (some of) the other founders (even there I’d have to think and read more before I definitively characterize their faith as “Christ of culture”). I do remember one of the big addresses having some significant references to God. In general I think that Washington was pretty amazing, and I don’t blame anyone–religious people, conservatives, etc.–for wanting him on their side. As Americans in general (and as a Virginian like me) we can be pretty proud that we had a good one there.
In general it’s an interesting case in point about culture. Historians can look at statements and at first blush make one interpretation of them. But perhaps for the people of the time these statements could be viewed as fake or on the other hand very sincere. And yet it seems that either could be wrong. The context in which they say these things is crucial. Bush is viewed by almost everyone as religious, because his ways of speaking and his life story don’t just acknowledge God, but indeed match up with the religious experiences of a whole lot of contemporary Americans.
Clark: I think we agree. The term religious takes in a great many kinds of subjective experiences. But when people use religious in a positive, normative sense, they often want to restrict it to a certain favored subset. I myself have always had a bit of trouble with Wilford Woodruff’s vision of the Founders. Not that they weren’t religious, but that they don’t strike me as being as anxious for heavenly salvation as people in this world who I’ve seen that are very desirous of baptism and the other ordinances. But I’ve probably got more to learn there.